All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > OT Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns
2/6/2013 9:16 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/6/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 7:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I am with you. I am a gun owner and am pro-gun. However, I am really getting a kick out of the people who are internalizing a proposed ban on the importation or saleof assault weapons for civilian use into gun confiscation. People have self-deluded themselves retarded.
 But just for debates sake, what is an assault weapon? And why would I trust this government to define this? What were assault weapons back in the 1770's when Jonas Clarke among others said no to turning them in? The King didn't want the colonists to have the assault weapon of their day either.

If I'm deluded so were the men that gave their lives at Lexington green.

Jibe, am I gonna see you on doomsday preppers sometime soon?
2/6/2013 9:56 PM
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 2/6/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 7:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I am with you. I am a gun owner and am pro-gun. However, I am really getting a kick out of the people who are internalizing a proposed ban on the importation or saleof assault weapons for civilian use into gun confiscation. People have self-deluded themselves retarded.
 But just for debates sake, what is an assault weapon? And why would I trust this government to define this? What were assault weapons back in the 1770's when Jonas Clarke among others said no to turning them in? The King didn't want the colonists to have the assault weapon of their day either.

If I'm deluded so were the men that gave their lives at Lexington green.

Jibe, am I gonna see you on doomsday preppers sometime soon?
I doubt it. Don't even know who they are.
2/6/2013 11:10 PM
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
2/6/2013 11:52 PM
Posted by jfootball88 on 2/6/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
The problem with this debate is that both sides have their points.  The gun-ban people are right that is you decrease the supply of guns, you will decrease the number of gun-related deaths and injury. This is not only evident in statistical data, but also is in-line with basic economic theory that the less suply means less opportunity (for guns to be used). The dumb part of their argument is that banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem of school shootings. It won't.

The pro-gun rights people also have a point. Restricting gun rights is anti-liberty and likely unconstitutional on the Federal level. Also, the banning of guns will not stop bad guys from using guns in the future. However, they are RIFE with dumb arguments such as: guns are like baseball bats and we don't ban baseball bats!  Another is that guns don't kill people, but somehow video games are to blame. DUMB ARGUMENT!  Another is that we need the guns to defend us from our government. If the armed citizens of Afganistan could not defeat our troops or the Army of Iraq, what makes you think Bubba in his Cabin or even the state of Alabama is going to fare better. DUMB Argument. 

Once again, the Assault weapon ban is not going to pass. The NRA owns the house and it is just not going to happen. That pretty much leaves the background checks and I am 100% for 100% of gun applicants having to pass a background check. Furthermore, this is the only thing that will pass and make everyone look good for the next election.
2/7/2013 2:05 AM
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 11:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jfootball88 on 2/6/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
The problem with this debate is that both sides have their points.  The gun-ban people are right that is you decrease the supply of guns, you will decrease the number of gun-related deaths and injury. This is not only evident in statistical data, but also is in-line with basic economic theory that the less suply means less opportunity (for guns to be used). The dumb part of their argument is that banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem of school shootings. It won't.

The pro-gun rights people also have a point. Restricting gun rights is anti-liberty and likely unconstitutional on the Federal level. Also, the banning of guns will not stop bad guys from using guns in the future. However, they are RIFE with dumb arguments such as: guns are like baseball bats and we don't ban baseball bats!  Another is that guns don't kill people, but somehow video games are to blame. DUMB ARGUMENT!  Another is that we need the guns to defend us from our government. If the armed citizens of Afganistan could not defeat our troops or the Army of Iraq, what makes you think Bubba in his Cabin or even the state of Alabama is going to fare better. DUMB Argument. 

Once again, the Assault weapon ban is not going to pass. The NRA owns the house and it is just not going to happen. That pretty much leaves the background checks and I am 100% for 100% of gun applicants having to pass a background check. Furthermore, this is the only thing that will pass and make everyone look good for the next election.
This is probably the most accurate and intelligent statement I have seen on this thread.  No one is taking away your guns.  And banning guns is not going to solve the problem.  However......if putting a restriction on assault weapons can just stop a few people.....then I'm all for it!
2/7/2013 9:39 AM
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 11:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jfootball88 on 2/6/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
The problem with this debate is that both sides have their points.  The gun-ban people are right that is you decrease the supply of guns, you will decrease the number of gun-related deaths and injury. This is not only evident in statistical data, but also is in-line with basic economic theory that the less suply means less opportunity (for guns to be used). The dumb part of their argument is that banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem of school shootings. It won't.

The pro-gun rights people also have a point. Restricting gun rights is anti-liberty and likely unconstitutional on the Federal level. Also, the banning of guns will not stop bad guys from using guns in the future. However, they are RIFE with dumb arguments such as: guns are like baseball bats and we don't ban baseball bats!  Another is that guns don't kill people, but somehow video games are to blame. DUMB ARGUMENT!  Another is that we need the guns to defend us from our government. If the armed citizens of Afganistan could not defeat our troops or the Army of Iraq, what makes you think Bubba in his Cabin or even the state of Alabama is going to fare better. DUMB Argument. 

Once again, the Assault weapon ban is not going to pass. The NRA owns the house and it is just not going to happen. That pretty much leaves the background checks and I am 100% for 100% of gun applicants having to pass a background check. Furthermore, this is the only thing that will pass and make everyone look good for the next election.
I too am 100% for ******** not having guns.I refer to Adam whatshisface in Connecticut. But he stole the guns and murdered to get them. So how would a more stringent background check have helped? And I'm not at all saying I disagree with more stringent background checks. Just asking for opinions.

I don't know the laws all over the country but here in Minnesota when I go into Gander Mountain I already have to check out. If I buy from any firearms dealer I have to check out or I don't walk out with the firearm. The only thing I can see as far as more would be a longer wait period. But again the criminals aren't buying their firearms at Gander Mountain likely anyway are they?

I don't know whats happening across the nation but here in my State the legislature is debating on a huge gun bill that will indeed ban many guns and history tells me when they gain an inch a foot is not far down the road. Here this is indeed a gun grab and it is against 2nd ammendment rights. Thats the bottom line.

2/7/2013 12:46 PM
This is great...someone brought Jesus in on the gun debate......
2/7/2013 1:59 PM
Posted by dukelegend on 2/7/2013 12:46:00 PM (view original):
This is great...someone brought Jesus in on the gun debate......
I HAD to do it!  Now let's talk about the post office......lol
2/7/2013 2:00 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/7/2013 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 11:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jfootball88 on 2/6/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
The problem with this debate is that both sides have their points.  The gun-ban people are right that is you decrease the supply of guns, you will decrease the number of gun-related deaths and injury. This is not only evident in statistical data, but also is in-line with basic economic theory that the less suply means less opportunity (for guns to be used). The dumb part of their argument is that banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem of school shootings. It won't.

The pro-gun rights people also have a point. Restricting gun rights is anti-liberty and likely unconstitutional on the Federal level. Also, the banning of guns will not stop bad guys from using guns in the future. However, they are RIFE with dumb arguments such as: guns are like baseball bats and we don't ban baseball bats!  Another is that guns don't kill people, but somehow video games are to blame. DUMB ARGUMENT!  Another is that we need the guns to defend us from our government. If the armed citizens of Afganistan could not defeat our troops or the Army of Iraq, what makes you think Bubba in his Cabin or even the state of Alabama is going to fare better. DUMB Argument. 

Once again, the Assault weapon ban is not going to pass. The NRA owns the house and it is just not going to happen. That pretty much leaves the background checks and I am 100% for 100% of gun applicants having to pass a background check. Furthermore, this is the only thing that will pass and make everyone look good for the next election.
I too am 100% for ******** not having guns.I refer to Adam whatshisface in Connecticut. But he stole the guns and murdered to get them. So how would a more stringent background check have helped? And I'm not at all saying I disagree with more stringent background checks. Just asking for opinions.

I don't know the laws all over the country but here in Minnesota when I go into Gander Mountain I already have to check out. If I buy from any firearms dealer I have to check out or I don't walk out with the firearm. The only thing I can see as far as more would be a longer wait period. But again the criminals aren't buying their firearms at Gander Mountain likely anyway are they?

I don't know whats happening across the nation but here in my State the legislature is debating on a huge gun bill that will indeed ban many guns and history tells me when they gain an inch a foot is not far down the road. Here this is indeed a gun grab and it is against 2nd ammendment rights. Thats the bottom line.

More thorough background checks are not going to stop killers from killing.  But if it even stops a couple of them, that is several lives saved.
2/7/2013 3:07 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/7/2013 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/6/2013 11:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jfootball88 on 2/6/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Arfy on 2/6/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Let's add to the controversy in this room(just for fun).

Why would you use a character that doesn't exist?  Why not use Superman or Iron man?

With respect, it is pretty well accepted that Jesus is/was real. The argument regards around his orgin, acts, and legacy.


This whole thread has gone to **** but its hilarious now.....(bringing the topic back to the point at hand)---The point of concern for everyone is the loss of innocent life. Does taking guns away prevent the loss of life? No, it doesn't stop murderers and criminals that don't follow laws as it is. We don't live in a utopian society and never will some things will never change. However I think it would help drastically to never speak that persons name on a news media clip EVER. That way you prevent copy cats from trying to get negative fame like so many people have tried in the last year....
The problem with this debate is that both sides have their points.  The gun-ban people are right that is you decrease the supply of guns, you will decrease the number of gun-related deaths and injury. This is not only evident in statistical data, but also is in-line with basic economic theory that the less suply means less opportunity (for guns to be used). The dumb part of their argument is that banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem of school shootings. It won't.

The pro-gun rights people also have a point. Restricting gun rights is anti-liberty and likely unconstitutional on the Federal level. Also, the banning of guns will not stop bad guys from using guns in the future. However, they are RIFE with dumb arguments such as: guns are like baseball bats and we don't ban baseball bats!  Another is that guns don't kill people, but somehow video games are to blame. DUMB ARGUMENT!  Another is that we need the guns to defend us from our government. If the armed citizens of Afganistan could not defeat our troops or the Army of Iraq, what makes you think Bubba in his Cabin or even the state of Alabama is going to fare better. DUMB Argument. 

Once again, the Assault weapon ban is not going to pass. The NRA owns the house and it is just not going to happen. That pretty much leaves the background checks and I am 100% for 100% of gun applicants having to pass a background check. Furthermore, this is the only thing that will pass and make everyone look good for the next election.
I too am 100% for ******** not having guns.I refer to Adam whatshisface in Connecticut. But he stole the guns and murdered to get them. So how would a more stringent background check have helped? And I'm not at all saying I disagree with more stringent background checks. Just asking for opinions.

I don't know the laws all over the country but here in Minnesota when I go into Gander Mountain I already have to check out. If I buy from any firearms dealer I have to check out or I don't walk out with the firearm. The only thing I can see as far as more would be a longer wait period. But again the criminals aren't buying their firearms at Gander Mountain likely anyway are they?

I don't know whats happening across the nation but here in my State the legislature is debating on a huge gun bill that will indeed ban many guns and history tells me when they gain an inch a foot is not far down the road. Here this is indeed a gun grab and it is against 2nd ammendment rights. Thats the bottom line.

You kinda made my point here. Background checks would not have stopped the Conn shootings. However, they will stop other people because, as you stated, " criminals aren't buying their firearms at Gander Mountain". The biggest problem is that we have no idea where they buy them from because we do not track firearm sales from gunshows and private sales. I am all for increasing background checks so we will at least be able to track these statistics. I am also for tightening supply. Less gun availability for normal citizens = tighter supply for illicit guns as well. 

I am against the assault weapon ban for the same reasons I am against drug control, it interferes in basic constitutional property rights. I may not like my neighbor having an assault weapon, but I respect it constitutionally as long as he is owning it responsibly and with no violation of my or other peoples rights and welfare (ie: shooting targets pinned against my fence). However, requiring background checks is a quite reasonable requirement IMO because it governs the trade and not the ownership of a firearm. Those are two separate regulatory authorities.
2/7/2013 3:07 PM
Posted by Arfy on 2/7/2013 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dukelegend on 2/7/2013 12:46:00 PM (view original):
This is great...someone brought Jesus in on the gun debate......
I HAD to do it!  Now let's talk about the post office......lol
A lot of people will be ticked about that one. I've heard that PO Boxes will still get delivery though
2/7/2013 4:22 PM
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I also will refrain from extensive comments. But just to add to caesari's point. Guns are illegal to own in Mexico. How's it going down there amigos?
2/7/2013 4:28 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 2/7/2013 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I also will refrain from extensive comments. But just to add to caesari's point. Guns are illegal to own in Mexico. How's it going down there amigos?
You know wheo else liked guns? HITLER!  (just kidding though)
2/7/2013 4:54 PM
By the way. I just made this the perfect troll thread by bringing Hitler into a a thread already discussing guns and religion.
2/7/2013 5:00 PM (edited)
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by katzphang88 on 2/7/2013 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I also will refrain from extensive comments. But just to add to caesari's point. Guns are illegal to own in Mexico. How's it going down there amigos?
You know wheo else liked guns? HITLER!  (just kidding though)
This thread is starting to remind me of this joke I have heard.  It is called 'the aristocrats'.  lol

Anyone heard this?


Be warned.  Not suitable for anyone that gets offended easily.

of 5
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > OT Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.